This was a Summary Judgment Application relating to the purchase of a business. The Court attempted to determine whether the case was proper for Summary Judgment. The Applicant argued that the case could properly be determined on the record, as the contract in question contained an entire agreement clause.

The Respondents argued that a full Trial was required, as they sought to introduce parol evidence of collateral representations, which evidence constituted an exception to the parol evidence Rule, and that evidence of such collateral representations raised issues which required a Trial.

The Court summarized the recent developments in the area of Summary Judgments as follows:

… the Supreme Court of Canada, and our Court of Appeal have recently insisted that a culture shift is required to promote timely and affordable access to our civil justice system and that this culture shift affects the way in which courts assess applications for summary judgment: Windsor, Hryniak (sometimes referred to as Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v Flesch). As our Court of Appeal put it in Windsor: “The modern test for summary judgment is therefore to examine the record to see if a disposition that is fair and just to both parties can be made on the existing record.”

After reviewing the facts, Veit J. determined that this case was appropriate for Summary Judgment. The Court considered the collateral representations, and determined that they were not material and that the Respondents would have entered the contract regardless of whether those representations were made or not. Therefore, no Trial was needed on the issue of collateral representations, and the matter could fairly be decided on the record. Accordingly, Veit J. granted Summary Judgment in favour of the Applicant.